Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Walt Kerman]

Or perhaps those PvP pilots would prefer to not shoot each other, but just randomly blow up other people for no reason apart from them not being in their group. Hence, being in a group is some "protection" from being shot at by other players in Open. Therefore it's easymode

Or they can spend their time pushing their factions control of a system.... And thats not how that works, you know it. You are a regular forumite, and should know better than to be trolling

 

[TheRhaj]

I've paid for the game. I have "MY" copy. My game says that i can play solo, that i can play with friends or community or selected people and says that i can play with everyone that have an copy too. I really don't care if anyone got his big badass anaconda full A in solo mode and blast his way to open. Or if anyone do not play in open becouse don't wanna be destroyed. I don't care becouse is YOUR copy of the game, you, me, we can do whatever we want. FD gave us options. I like options. What i don't like? That someone change my game, my fun, just why they want. Go play your game. Go think 'bout death, get sad and stuff... This is a game, this will not change your life. You do not have a spaceship (yet. Who knows?).

So... Let the people play the way they want, whithout bla bla bla.

Cya (or not).

 

[W0OCQCK]

How about making open equal to solo?

I'm curious, how would you suggest making it equal Walt?

 

[Walt Kerman]

I'm curious, how would you suggest making it equal Walt?

Why! Im so glad you asked!

No they are not. I've put out a compromise several times to discuss that doesnt touch solo/private open yet no one even mentioned it. (well maybe one person)

Here it is again this time pasted in. Maybe people are too lazy to click links.

Solution to open being forced to grind in solo in order to be effective

Solo, private, and open don’t need to be changed in order to avoid discouraging open players into solo.

Proposal:
In combat zones, the combat bond increases according to the difficulty of the ship type. As players are more difficult, recognize the increase in difficulty level and boost how much killing a player contributes to the war effort – keep combat bond reward the same, but have the amount it contributes toward the community goal equal to or some factor less than the rebuy of the ship destroyed. Keeping the contribution to the war effort less than or equal to the rebuy of the ship prevents exploits where a player joins a faction and purposely dies to help the other faction. This can still be done but at great expense to the commander… unless he’s doing it in a sidewinder in which case the contribution is hardly helping since its equal or less than the rebuy. He might as well be grinding out a mil per hour in solo.

Analysis:
Let’s take the example where the contribution of killing a commander’s ship is equal to his rebuy. You kill a commander in a cobra worth 1 million. You get 8000 in combat bonds, his rebuy is 20,000, and that counts 20,000 towards the war effort.

A second example would be destroying a vulture with a rebuy of 700,000. You would get 20,000 in bonds, he would lose 700,000 but it would go to your war effort. Does this seem like a little much? If you play in open you know how often those commanders escape. If you are lucky you might get two an hour assuming you don’t die yourself. Two an hour would be 1.4 mill an hour, split that among the likely four players that hit him and that’s 350,000 per hour. Stack what you are probably getting in open (200k to 300k) and now you are at 750,000 if you are lucky. This is all assuming you haven’t died and it’s still less than a mil per hour in solo. Remember this is contribution to the community goal, and the player only made 5k off splitting the Vulture’s combat bonds with friends. Still too much? Well you can always apply diminishing returns as the rebuy cost increases reducing it by an increasing percentage to keep it in check.

Wrap up:

• Players are the hardest thing to kill so benefit of killing them is increased to reflect this.
• Combat bond profit remains the same
• Contribution towards the war effort is equal to or less than rebuy to prevent exploits
• Solo/private/open is unchanged

 

[Asp Explorer]

Or they can spend their time pushing their factions control of a system.... And thats not how that works, you know it. You are a regular formite, and should know better to be trolling

The thing is - I don't believe very many players give a flying pollock about a factions control of a system. It's a completely irrelevant detail, currently with near-zero effect on gameplay. Wether System X belongs to Faction Y doesn't really matter, as it hardly affects gameplay. What does matter, is players in System Whatever pretending to belong to Faction Whatever, and then shooting other players for purely invented reasons. It's not in-game, it's not lore-based, it's not even sensible as all the Open players moaned about the highest bounty targets "hiding" in Solo.

Until players have good reason to shoot other players, I definitely favour the status quo. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am then I will happily admit so - but we have to see some in-game development first.

 

[Walt Kerman]

The thing is - I don't believe very many players give a flying pollock about a factions control of a system. It's a completely irrelevant detail, currently with near-zero effect on gameplay. Wether System X belongs to Faction Y doesn't really matter, as it hardly affects gameplay. What does matter, is players in System Whatever pretending to belong to Faction Whatever, and then shooting other players for purely invented reasons. It's not in-game, it's not lore-based, it's not even sensible as all the Open players moaned about the highest bounty targets "hiding" in Solo.

Until players have good reason to shoot other players, I definitely favour the status quo. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am then I will happily admit so - but we have to see some in-game development first.

No. We have never shot someone randomly for being in system. Nor do the Lugh guys as far as I know. Waste of time. I think you underestimate how fun many players find pushing the factions, as limited as it is. I think FD may have been surprised about this as well, but they have certainly embraced it, especially over the last two weeks.

 

[Asp Explorer]

No. We have never shot someone randomly for being in system. Nor do the Lugh guys as far as I know. Waste of time. I think you underestimate how fun many players find pushing the factions, as limited as it is. I think FD may have been surprised about this as well, but they have certainly embraced it, especially over the last two weeks.

But you, or me, or anyone else, never belong to a faction. You can meet their goals forever, but you will, as a player, never be a member of an NPC faction. It just doesn't make sense, plus it's a completely undesireable goal for many people. Why actively try to be an NPC?

 

[Walt Kerman]

But you, or me, or anyone else, never belong to a faction. You can meet their goals forever, but you will, as a player, never be a member of an NPC faction. It just doesn't make sense, plus it's a completely undesireable goal for many people. Why actively try to be an NPC?

Obviously I'm not aspiring to be an NPC.....

I'm part of that faction if I identify and feel like I'm part of that faction. As the Mercs continually tell me, coming back to Mikunn feels like coming home. We all admit it's weird, but there it is.

 

[W0OCQCK]

Why! Im so glad you asked!

Well I'm not in a state of shock or anything. We'll just have to see what the Dev's think, maybe they'll like it. I give you rep, because unlike some here, you seem pretty respectful and that's a big plus +1. Even though Mertz, (yea I know I spelled it wrong) wasn't preaching anything bad specifically, and I understood what he meant from the get go, and actually didn't totally disagree with him, I finally had to just block him. I hate arrogant, self righteous people to the bone.

I would say, I'm not dead set against a little balancing in that there area.

For me personally, after 10+ years of EvE, I have very little tolerance for rotten people, such my PVE Group. I play to relax, not to prove anything to anyone.

 

[Yaffle]

All

Stop arguing, sniping, baiting and general nastyness. It's just a game.

Thank you.

 

[TheScotsman]

I don't touch online play what so ever. I hardly have enough cash at it is, i don't need some ass destroying me for the lols who doesn't care about money.

 

[fademist]

Why! Im so glad you asked!

i found a flaw walt on that ;p
A second example would be destroying a vulture with a rebuy of 700,000. You would get 20,000 in bonds, he would lose 700,000 but it would go to your war effort. Does this seem like a little much? If you play in open you know how often those commanders escape. If you are lucky you might get two an hour assuming you don’t die yourself. Two an hour would be 1.4 mill an hour, split that among the likely four players that hit him and that’s 350,000 per hour. Stack what you are probably getting in open (200k to 300k) and now you are at 750,000 if you are lucky. This is all assuming you haven’t died and it’s still less than a mil per hour in solo. Remember this is contribution to the community goal, and the player only made 5k off splitting the Vulture’s combat bonds with friends. Still too much? Well you can always apply diminishing returns as the rebuy cost increases reducing it by an increasing percentage to keep it in check.

what stops that commader to change mode for good after 2-3 boom?

 

[Walt Kerman]

i found a flaw walt on that ;p
A second example would be destroying a vulture with a rebuy of 700,000. You would get 20,000 in bonds, he would lose 700,000 but it would go to your war effort. Does this seem like a little much? If you play in open you know how often those commanders escape. If you are lucky you might get two an hour assuming you don’t die yourself. Two an hour would be 1.4 mill an hour, split that among the likely four players that hit him and that’s 350,000 per hour. Stack what you are probably getting in open (200k to 300k) and now you are at 750,000 if you are lucky. This is all assuming you haven’t died and it’s still less than a mil per hour in solo. Remember this is contribution to the community goal, and the player only made 5k off splitting the Vulture’s combat bonds with friends. Still too much? Well you can always apply diminishing returns as the rebuy cost increases reducing it by an increasing percentage to keep it in check.

what stops that commader to change mode for good after 2-3 boom?

Nothing. Thats the beauty. Nothing needs to stop him, and none of the open players care, unless hes combat logging in which case thats actually considered an exploit.

 

[fademist]

Nothing. Thats the beauty. Nothing needs to stop him, and none of the open players care, unless hes combat logging in which case thats actually considered an exploit.

the problem will be when other cmrs do the same for the same reasons that maybe need litle work in the end u dont want ppl go to solo/group

yeah i know i got the bad turn out but is always good to be prepared for that ;p

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

This, I agree with completely. As I mentioned earlier, I believe choice and consequence to be the basic idea behind Open gameplay, and right now FD has to deal with two issues to make that happen:

1. Consequences are too weak.
.

Unbelievable! Finally some common ground. I completely agree with this.

Make hi sec truly dangerous for illegals, combined with not able to pay own bounties off and have long term consequences for mindless ship destruction and I think many will come back to all.

I would also add CZs should never run out of ships and when they replenish it should not be a couple of condors it should be big wings of powerful ships and I know its a bit gamey but maybe subtlety ramp them up for large wings to keep interesting.

IMO before radical changes this should be tried. It may fix the perceived problem. No one wants to hang around doing nowt in a warzone!.

As I said before other areas of the game pay more and are actively easier in all when you are in a group so IMO changes need to be done carefully but IMO the above would be a good start and I do not think would be too controversial for any group.

 

[Ericlas]

Wouldn't it have been the easiest way from the beginning, having every player in only 1 available mode and make it possible to "flag" themselves for "PVP" "PVP-Group" or "PVE"?

This would mean every player can see each other, but if you are not flagged "PVP" you are untouchable by other players and ofc can't touch any other player. (Solo mode)
Or being only touchable by selected players of a group you joiined in "PVP-group" (Group mode)
Or ofc flagging yourself "PVP" being able to attack as well be attacked by every other player (Open mode).

It works in other games and after a short time it doesn't even feel unnatural.

edit: it still wouldn't be possible to "blockade" any system, but it would neglate some of the arguments here, saying solo-players are favoured by being alone in combat zones (meaning it easier for them to collect bounties since they don't run out of targets), or being able to still trade when open-players already experience a short in supplies etc.

edit2: i could go further, in low-sec-systems or anarchies players would automatically be flagged "PVP" to make it actually dangerous entering those, providing pirates with a playground as well as bounty-hunters a place to look for preys, thus making it dangerous for pirates as well .....to make this viable, stations in low-sec / anarchies would present the most profits, making them the favoured target of traders keeping this circle alive...

 

[DarkseeD]

The rewards and outcomes should be equal to all players, it doesn't bother me that some one earns more in solo or contributes to community goals while i'm having fun with mates in open or group mode. It just seems that the self righteous believe they should have more than the people who don't want to play their way.

 

[Exluna]

the problem will be when other cmrs do the same for the same reasons that maybe need litle work in the end u dont want ppl go to solo/group

yeah i know i got the bad turn out but is always good to be prepared for that ;p

Why would it be a problem if they switched to solo/group after a few times getting killed? Its their choice. Of course they lose out on contributing more to the war effort by taking out other like minded, PvP centric commanders. I like the idea too, I think it definitely has some potential.

I don't think the objective is to stop anyone from going from open to solo/group. I think the objective is to try to gain some kind of parity between the challenges faced by both. PvPers can feel rewarded for basically doing what they love doing, and those wanting less of a challenge are still contributing, knowing that they aren't forced to kill or be killed by other players, instead pitting their skill against the AI. Instead of penalizing everyone else for not PvPing, this rewards people who do PvP for erm... PvP-ing. Is PvP-ing a word?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Wouldn't it have been the easiest way from the beginning, having every player in only 1 available mode and make it possible to "flag" themselves for "PVP" "PVP-Group" or "PVE"?

I think the issue is it is too gamey. magic players who are immune to destruction would be rubbish imo, not to mention it negates the whole accidental friendly fire issues which promote careful and tactical play rather than blind brainless shooting.

its a good idea but just not for elite imo.... and besides that wont stop some people from just wanting no interaction with people sometimes, and it wont help those with bad internets.

The best way to do it is to encourage people into all by sensible game mechanics. many of us just want a believable game. Elite isnt a sim, but it is sort of trying to be imo. In any real world scenario where we had managed to get ourselves hold of a multi million £ space vessel (1 credit is clearly worth more than £1 looking at the price of gold per TON!) people would not mindlessly fly around blowing ships up, for lols treating their own ship as disposable. Equally insurance coompanies would not happily foot 95% of the bill every time it happened without complaining and neither would the police be so inept as to let it go on in high security space without doing anything.

I think some fixes could be made which would on the surface of it seem easy, to help, ie carrots not just sticks like the ones i listed above. AI traders should carry commodities similar to players, not just cheap tat, illegals should have bases of their own where they are more accepted for their crimes - within certain boundaries - and warzones should not be cleared out leaving bunches of bored players with itchy trigger fingers.

If players really want to live the life of a serial killer, fine, I do not think they should be mechanically blocked, but the game should treat them as society should be expected to treat any serial killer.

I cant speak for anyone else only myself, but the moment this game becomes less mindless shooty space action arcade game hunting out hollow targets just "because", and more a believable life of a space man in the year 3301 I will be back in ALL.
It certainly started this way. Right through late beta (once we got out of the 5 system lock in) gamma, december, and most of Jan players were respectful, friendly and co-operative and I never had any troubles (I do not consider piracy in the elite sense where you ask for money, and failing that blow the hatch, troubles). But then all of a sudden sometime in late Jan the mood changed.

The whole lore behind the Federation of elite pilots as I understand it, supports this notion.

I am not trying to shoot down your idea ( ) I just do not agree with it - for elite.

I don't think the objective is to stop anyone from going from open to solo/group. I think the objective is to try to gain some kind of parity between the challenges faced by both. PvPers can feel rewarded for basically doing what they love doing, and those wanting less of a challenge are still contributing, knowing that they aren't forced to kill or be killed by other players, instead pitting their skill against the AI. Instead of penalizing everyone else for not PvPing, this rewards people who do PvP for erm... PvP-ing. Is PvP-ing a word?

Not sure if you have been merged into this thread from another, but there are a number of facets to this thread. Broadly there are 3 groups (with variants of)

Some people are as you, just looking to balance out the community goals etc, (these are the fairest of the bunch that i have some sympathy for)
where as others want solo/groups gone and if your internet is not good enough then elite is not the game for you - KSers be damned about what was promised, we paid our money now tough,
and another group who are happy for solo and groups to exist, but that any character that has ever played outside of ALL be for ever banned from getting back in.

 

[fademist]

Why would it be a problem if they switched to solo/group after a few times getting killed? Its their choice. Of course they lose out on contributing more to the war effort by taking out other like minded, PvP centric commanders. I like the idea too, I think it definitely has some potential.

I don't think the objective is to stop anyone from going from open to solo/group. I think the objective is to try to gain some kind of parity between the challenges faced by both. PvPers can feel rewarded for basically doing what they love doing, and those wanting less of a challenge are still contributing, knowing that they aren't forced to kill or be killed by other players, instead pitting their skill against the AI. Instead of penalizing everyone else for not PvPing, this rewards people who do PvP for erm... PvP-ing. Is PvP-ing a word?

you dont get what i said ;p